why does eating more = weight loss?
Options
Replies
-
We are all special, but no one is an exception to the first law of thermodynamics. There are no exceptions; that's what makes it a law.
Forgetting to log cooking oils, or not accurately weighing foods, cheat days where you don't log, or overestimating calories burned from activity, or working with a TDEE estimation that doesn't apply to you can mean you are not in a calorie deficit.
I agree with your Law of Thermodynamics statement.
Of course. I think what is being suggested, however, is that the calorie burns slow down so much when under-eating that the deficit is eliminated, hence the stall. I don't know if this is scientifically backed, but that seems to be the claim. Most of the metabolic damage links I saw were discussing body composition (fat vs muscle) loss, but the question I have is one of simple weight loss. If metabolism DOES actually slow to match TDEE, then the law is not violated.
eta: again this is purely in the interest of the pursuit of scientific knowledge and it is not a question about nutrition, health or body composition. I do not advocate low calorie diets.
I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why eating more works for some people. I'll post it again below.Your body does not cling onto fat, that's a load of bull. Your body does not defy the laws of physics, as in energy can not be created or destroyed. The amount of weight you lose depends on eating less and being more active. If all you did was eat more and laid in bed all day, you'd gain weight so there can be a huge misconception to the whole "eat more notion". Eating more works because some people need the extra energy to do more things in the day that they don't realize when eating so little calories. Symptoms of not eating enough can be associated with fatigue and tiredness which leads to sitting down more often which means to less calories burned.
Yes, that is plausible.0 -
In medicine there's a saying, "all bleeding stops eventually." It may take a minute to find the (morbid) perspective from which that is always true.Wow. Very confusing to read all the different views on caloric intake and metabolism! Basically, on january 11th, I weighed 274. I started juicing, using every vegetable under the sun, and after 2 solid weeks of juicing, started introducing raw foods and now am juicing/raw foods/vegan. I ride a recumbent bike every day for 10 miles, 45 minutes whichever comes first, and when I weighed in on Feb. 14th had lost 21 pounds. I am not lacking ANY nutrients that I can think of, but I only consume about 500-900 calories a day. My question is, Is my weight loss ultimately going to stop?
ultimately, yes. when? that's harder to determine. I don't think what you're doing is sustainable or advisable but I'm not your physician and don't know what your health risks are.
Why would it stop? 500 calories a day will turn anyone male or female into an emaciated bean pole if they do it long enough. You aren't saying people are immune to energy balance I'm sure so I don't know why you'd think it would stop.
The same is true of weight loss.0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took the course a while ago.
.0 -
I do find that its not the calories that drives weight gain or loss but actually the type of food your eating. (this is within reasonable confines). If i eat 1500 calories of crap i will put on weight (1500 is typical minimum for a man) - if i eat 5 servings of fruits and veg and eat low sugar and only high quailty carbs I will lose weight. just an observation of me personally. I hated WW at times constantly going on about 5 serving a day but in the long run i realize that it is one thing they truly have right - when they started peddling food and 100 calorie bars etc i think the program went down hill. they use to have a program where you never tracked what you ate as long as you ate off the "list" - it of course was all fruits, veggies and proteins - no junk - no Big Macs
. As well it is well recognized that if you eat more calories (within confines) over 6 smaller meals that it does tend to boost metabolism. just my 2 cents worth - i'm not God so cant tell you exactly what will work for everyone.
No, it doesn't. It just helps a lot of people control satiety if the eat something every few hours.
I'm glad the expert logged in - if a calorie is a calorie then why did Atkins work with people eating sausage and chicken wings all day long?
You should consider writing a book - you know what works for everyone. People are asking for advice not lectures and if you have all the answers why are you on this website in the first place?0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took physics a while ago.
Yes, but lower energy burn from metabolic damage (with constant activity) is also plausible and won't defy the laws of physics. I am just wondering what the scientific evidence shows on the metabolic slowdown side.0 -
Yes, that is plausible.
Work, Energy, and Calories are all defined in physics. I took physics a while ago.
Yes, but lower energy burn from metabolic damage (with constant activity) is also plausible and won't defy the laws of physics. I am just wondering what the scientific evidence shows on the metabolic slowdown side.
I don't understand what you mean by "metabolic damage". Is there a disease you are referring to that I don't know about? The only real disease that I know that impacts your metabolism is called diabetes, as in your body literally loses it's ability to use sugar as energy. Is there a disease associated with the destruction of one's metabolism when not eating enough that I do not know about? What happens to your metabolism when you don't eat enough? As far as I am aware, everything in your body still operates as it should when eating too few calories and any symptom of eating too few calories can always be solved by eating more because your metabolism is not "damaged" as you would say.
.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.0 -
Has it ever actually been established that the same person eating 1200 calories for extended periods of time actually 'absorbs' all 1200 calories, and the same person who eats 3000 calories for extended periods actually 'absorbs' all 3000 calories?
Everyone is always focused on the 'calories out' side of the equation and (apparently) just assumes calories in is always exactly equal to the number of calories that travel down your esophagus.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
I disagree with the notion that your body adapts or is destroyed by a VLC-Diet. It is the person that adapts, not your body. For proof of this, I will point towards pro athletes who cut 20 points in two weeks to make their weight class and pictures below of results of a 500 calorie 2 week PSMF diet.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=1210600010 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc0 -
Has it ever actually been established that the same person eating 1200 calories for extended periods of time actually 'absorbs' all 1200 calories, and the same person who eats 3000 calories for extended periods actually 'absorbs' all 3000 calories?
Everyone is always focused on the 'calories out' side of the equation and (apparently) just assumes calories in is always exactly equal to the number of calories that travel down your esophagus.
hmmm... that's a very interesting question.0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
I disagree with the notion that your body adapts or is destroyed by a VLC-Diet. It is the person that adapts, not your body. For proof of this, I will point towards pro athletes who cut 20 points in two weeks to make their weight class and pictures below of results of a 500 calorie 2 week PSMF diet.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121060001
What if someone were to sustain a VLCD for 6 months? A year? longer? I think 2 weeks is too short of a time frame for judgement.0 -
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
0 -
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?0 -
ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
I disagree with the notion that your body adapts or is destroyed by a VLC-Diet. It is the person that adapts, not your body. For proof of this, I will point towards pro athletes who cut 20 points in two weeks to make their weight class and pictures below of results of a 500 calorie 2 week PSMF diet.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121060001
What if someone were to sustain a VLCD for 6 months? A year? longer? I think 2 weeks is too short of a time frame for judgement.
I haven't ran across anything that would make me believe that someone's body would adapt to a VLCD. Maybe someone else here has?0 -
There are many articles out about this very subject. And this is advice that is given when one reaches a weight loss plateau, which is what I have done. I have a hard time understanding the science in the 'eat more calories'...But it is explained on many websites, it does make some sense, with the body going into starvation mode, and your body or metabolism catches up with the new eating and activity levels. Anyway, I am going to be adding some calories!! I hope it works! 0
-
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?
Correlation. Increased calories reduces cortisol which leads to water loss and all your efforts of starving finally showing up.0 -
Even if increasing cals wasn't the proximal cause it was still a vital part of the causal chain in your hypothetical examples.ok... so all this talk about metabolic damage. Assuming your metabolism does "adapt" to VLCD (which certainly seems to be the case), if you get to the point where you aren't seeing weight loss, doesn't a modest calorie reduction put you back in a deficit, and thus will/should result in weight loss?
Scenario:
Someone has a healthy TDEE of 3000.
They eat 1000 cals/day for long enough to "damage" their metabolism
At someone point their TDEE drops to 1000 and weight loss stops.
They cut to 900 cals, which puts them back in a deficit and they start losing weight again.
Again, I'm not advocating this. I'm also intentionally ignoring the general nutritional/health issues associated with this. I'm talking simply about the number on the scale.
End result, of course, is death, but they'd keep losing weight.
Right. Obviously we are talking extremes, but I think the point has been made.
For all the posts we see on this site about how someone is doing everything right and still not losing weight, the answer is NEVER that increasing cals = greater weight loss.
There may be other health issues that trump weight loss and that require increasing cals, but then it's not about weight loss but rather overall health.
Increasing cals may give more energy which could lead to more intense workouts would could lead to weight loss, but then it's not the increase in cals that leads to weight loss, it's the increased intensity of the workouts.
Increasing cals may make your dietary goals more consistent which may lead to less binging which may mean your dietary goals are now more attainable/sustainable which may lead to weight loss, but then it's the steady and consistent hitting of your calorie goals that leads to weight loss, not the increase in cals.
etc etc
Causation or correlation? I increase cals slightly, but don't change my workouts/intensity. Will I still lose?
Correlation. Increased calories reduces cortisol which leads to water loss and all your efforts of starving finally showing up.
Does that assume that the body/metabolism is stressed? If it's "adapted" to the low cal intake as everyone says it does, then doesn't the stress from being underfed eventually go away?0 -
Bumping for later0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions